I think a lot of the things in the Bible are taken as not being literal. I have not studied the Bible heavily, so I can't give a better answer.

It has always confused me how people can believe some things in the Bible as literal, and some as not.

One of my favorite things to talk about is my intro to Bio class at college, when talking about evolution and religion explaining that religion doesn't belong in science, but just because something isn't science doesn't mean it isn't true.

Man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. - Henry Benson

volcob wrote:my question is does Darwin's real concept of evolution contradicts or oposes that of the bible's concept or his concept simply complements that of the Bible's

Well, it depends. If you think that Adam and Eve are the first humans, and that we are all descendent's of Adam and Eve, then yes, this does contradict modern science. (as does the 6 day creation theory.)

If however, you hold some metaphorical meaning behind it, then perhaps you might be able to compromise your faith with evolution.

I was not able to compromise both. I just could never see why god would say one thing in the Bible, yet mean another. It never made sense to me. I never understood how for 1900 years priests could say "the earth is 6,000 years old, and we are from adam and eve"and now all of a sudden change it.

Of course, some take the torah metaphorically. Maimonides, the BIGGEST and most well known scholar of Judaism made it clear that the torah should conform to modern science. Ibn ezra affirmed that belief, as did many other Jews throughout history. Pope Benedict said that evolution and theism are two complementing aspects. Of course, I still disagree with them all(because why would the Bible say one thing but mean another) but oviously many other prominent scholars who have devoted their lives to the Torah or Bible have had no problem accepting things metaphorically.

The Bible is actually not in its pure form. It has been edited by many people since it was revealed. So, we can not blame God.
In the Bible many scientific errors are written. But still, if you believe in Bible you have to accept that science is wrong and if you believe in science you have to accept that Bible is wrong (not God).

Right, because the bible teaches us to live our lives unscientifically and and science teaches us to live godlessly.

Apparently, you don't know know much about either field.

Science may explain a how, but it definitely does not explain a why. We have evolved to eat meat, but does that mean we "ought" to eat meat? If you think so, then you're committing a logical fallacy.

Religon is not interested in being scientific; why would you debase the supernatural into naturalist terms? Why should any religious text contain accurate scientific descriptions to "prove" its "holiness." It doesn't. I find it terribly demeaning when people try to impose their own personal beliefs on what a religious text should or should not be and then create a false dichotomy out of their own ignorance.

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

mith wrote:Religon is not interested in being scientific; why would you debase the supernatural into naturalist terms? Why should any religious text contain accurate scientific descriptions to "prove" its "holiness." It doesn't. I find it terribly demeaning when people try to impose their own personal beliefs on what a religious text should or should not be and then create a false dichotomy out of their own ignorance.

Mith, this is probably the wisest paragraph I have ever heard in this forum. You're going in the Member Quotes Thread for this one.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

sob wrote:The Bible is actually not in its pure form. It has been edited by many people since it was revealed. So, we can not blame God. In the Bible many scientific errors are written. But still, if you believe in Bible you have to accept that science is wrong and if you believe in science you have to accept that Bible is wrong (not God).

As mith said, I would suggest you do a little background research into this subject. The original texts of the Bible still exist and most modern translations strive to be as close to the original as possible. The Bible is in no way obligated to contain accurate scientific data as it is a religious text first and a historical record second, but never a scientific text book. There is no reason at all why a believer cannot simultaneously accept both science and the Bible.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

mith wrote "Religon is not interested in being scientific; why would you debase the supernatural into naturalist terms? Why should any religious text contain accurate scientific descriptions to "prove" its "holiness." It doesn't. I find it terribly demeaning when people try to impose their own personal beliefs on what a religious text should or should not be and then create a false dichotomy out of their own ignorance.
_________________

To-day that all sounds very logical and plausible but you should also take into account
that for many years the church did represent the “science” that was then available. Until the age of enlightenment clerics were in the main the only educated people and the early parts of the bible does its best to describe natural “scientific” processes. Proof of this lies in the resistance that the church has put up against scientific discoveries that it did not approve.

You cannot blame people for confusing “the natural with the supernatural” for the church has been doing just that for many years. Had the church just stuck to morals then perhaps there would have been less confusion?